Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
Patmont Motor Werks, Inc. v. CSK Auto Inc., 2006 WL 2591042 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2006)
2
Super Group Packaging & Distrib. Corp. v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp., 2006 WL 274779 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2006)
3
Columbus McKinnon Corp. v. HealthNow New York, Inc., 2006 WL 2827675 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2006)
4
PML N. Am., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3759914 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006)
5
Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 2004 WL 5571412 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), affirmed, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006)
6
N3 Oceanic, Inc. v. Shields, 2006 WL 2433731 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2006)
7
Satchell v. Fedex Express, 2006 WL 2884318 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2006)
8
MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Titan Specialized Servs., Inc., 2006 WL 3524502 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 6, 2006)
9
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)
10
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 851 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)

Patmont Motor Werks, Inc. v. CSK Auto Inc., 2006 WL 2591042 (D. Nev. Sept. 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s renewed motion for sanctions where plaintiff had failed to satisfy local meet and confer requirement; parties had previously engaged in meet and confer during recess and agreed on search methodology for responsive documents and emails

Nature of Case: Trademark and copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet; email

Super Group Packaging & Distrib. Corp. v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp., 2006 WL 274779 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2006)

Key Insight: In court’s decision ruling on parties’ respective post-trial motions, court affirmed its prior determination that defendants did not use reasonable efforts to locate responsive emails or provide them to plaintiff, and granted plaintiff’s motion to award $11,310 in sanctions representing plaintiff’s costs and fees expended on the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Columbus McKinnon Corp. v. HealthNow New York, Inc., 2006 WL 2827675 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: Court rejected defendant’s excuses for extended delay in producing itemization of withdrawals in a format usable by plaintiff, and ordered defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the reasonable cost of attorneys’ fees incurred in moving for contempt of court’s prior order

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Billing records, backup tapes, DVDs

Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 2004 WL 5571412 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2004), affirmed, 464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff deleted whole directories without looking at their contents and designed drive wiping program to write over data indiscriminately after he had notice of the pendency of the litigation, court concluded that ?the extreme nature? of plaintiff?s bad faith behavior, combined with harm done to defendants, merited dismissal of plaintiff?s claims with prejudice; court further ordered plaintiff to pay defendants $65,000 to reimburse them for expenses incurred in investigating and litigating spoliation issue

Nature of Case: Retaliation under False Claims Act and other federal statutes, and Washington state law claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

N3 Oceanic, Inc. v. Shields, 2006 WL 2433731 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for sanctions based upon spoliation allegedly committed by former president when he erased from his computer copies of documents containing information he believed to be proprietary to plaintiff, since defendant ?discarded the documents to avoid impropriety, not to engage in it? and because the evidence that was the subject of the spoliation claim was in the record and plaintiff suffered no prejudice

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary electronic documents, including business plans and customer lists

Satchell v. Fedex Express, 2006 WL 2884318 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2006)

Key Insight: Court granted motion to compel and motion for sanctions, requiring defendant to produce additional documents and file a sworn declaration describing all steps taken to locate particular items; to the extent that defendant’s production did not include responsive documents because they ceased to exist in either paper or electronic format, defendant required to file a sworn declaration stating when it destroyed or ceased to retain these documents, and the policies or reasons for their destruction; to the extent defendant contended that it already produced any of the documents described, defendant to provide a sworn declaration identifying the Bates numbers that correspond to the type of document; defendant further ordered to pay plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the motion

Nature of Case: Class action employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Personnel records

MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Titan Specialized Servs., Inc., 2006 WL 3524502 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 6, 2006)

Key Insight: Where evidence showed that defendant had not fully complied with preliminary injunction and had continued to retain and use disputed software, court ordered defendant to produce all of its computers for inspection by plaintiff’s computer expert to ensure that all plaintiff’s software and trade secrets were removed; court further ordered defendant to bear costs of expert’s work and to pay plaintiff its reasonable fees and expenses in bringing the motion

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Software programs, disks, hard drives

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 2006 WL 335846 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2006)

Key Insight: Although court decided it could not hold either party in contempt, it advised that parties? exchange of emails and written correspondence did not satisfy meet and confer requirement contained in court’s earlier Case Management Order; court understood the phrase to mean “a conference in which opposing parties actually talk to one another”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 851 N.E.2d 317 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)

Key Insight: Court abused its descretion when it refused to enter protective order addressing Allstate’s production of computer program and manuals, since plaintiff made no showing that discovery under a protective order would be detrimental to his case, and it was shown that discovery without a protective order could be detrimental to Allstate

Nature of Case: Bad faith insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Colossus computer program used by Allstate to evaluate claims

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.